Whose comment section wins?
Pick any two fanbases and compare what their comment sections say, stat for stat.
Who is happier
Fan Score counts positive comments per 1,000, so a loud fanbase cannot buy its way up the board. Positive share tells the same story as a percentage of everything said.
Fan Score
Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)
Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)
Positive share
Share of all comments that are positive
Share of all comments that are positive
Who is harsher
Negativity, toxicity and explicit language, every one of them per 1,000 comments so the two sides stay comparable whatever their volume.
Negativity
Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Toxicity
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)
Explicit language
Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Identity-based abuse, tag by tag
Tag applications per 1,000 comments
Central Michigan left, Pittsburgh right. Tag applications per 1,000 comments, on the same scale across every row. Reported as rates only: this block never picks a winner.
What they talk about
Three topic groups where neither direction is better, just louder. These rows describe a comment section instead of scoring it.
Betting talk
Sports-betting comments per 1,000
Sports-betting comments per 1,000
Team & front office talk
Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday
Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday
NIL & portal talk
NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap
NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap
Week by week, side by side
The same season read twice: weekly mood for both comment sections, the weeks the two teams actually met, and where each fanbase lands nationally on the seven topic groups.
Rivalry pulse
| Week of | Central Michigan result | Central Michigan positive share | Central Michigan negative share | Pittsburgh result | Pittsburgh positive share | Pittsburgh negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 64.9% | 21.8% | – | 60.7% | 16% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 89.4% | 5.8% | W | 56.8% | 31.9% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 71.3% | 20.7% | W | 61.3% | 27.5% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 76.1% | 14.6% | L | 26.6% | 64.7% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 83.1% | 7.7% | – | 55.2% | 35.1% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 81.5% | 6.9% | L | 20.9% | 69.4% |
| 2025-10-04 | L | 72.2% | 21.7% | W | 70.7% | 16% |
| 2025-10-11 | – | 67.9% | 26.8% | W | 72.7% | 19.1% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 85.3% | 5.7% | W | 68% | 20.5% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 85.3% | 7.7% | W | 74.3% | 15.6% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 83.3% | 7.6% | W | 65.1% | 18.7% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 81.5% | 9.5% | – | 57% | 20.1% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 89.1% | 5.6% | L | 50% | 38% |
| 2025-11-22 | – | 85.6% | 5% | W | 56.2% | 30.7% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 82.3% | 7.7% | L | 55.2% | 35.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 72.4% | 10.5% | – | 43% | 43% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 60% | 25% | – | 55.9% | 29.9% |
| 2025-12-20 | L | 82.1% | 11.8% | – | 65.6% | 20.2% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 88.9% | 11.1% | L | 26.2% | 63.8% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 89.7% | 1.5% | – | 32.8% | 53.7% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 94.7% | 0% | – | 37.5% | 44.2% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 39% | 40.7% | – | 37.8% | 53.7% |
“Let’s Go Drinkall!!! & Co OC & Tight Ends Coach Derek Fulton!!!!”
“Good luck Coach Drinkall!! Go kick some major Ass!!”
“All these guys are on 53-man rosters? These aren't practice squad guys, right?”
“Sorry but in WV it's "EAT 💩 PITT!. LET'S GO MOUNTAINEERS!!!😆 🤣 😂”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- Central Michigan Harm: 15th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Central Michigan Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- Central Michigan Explicit Language: 9th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Central Michigan College Sports: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Central Michigan Off-Field Storylines: 16th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Central Michigan Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Central Michigan Team & Front Office: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Harm: 71st percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Identity-Based Abuse: 40th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Explicit Language: 33rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh College Sports: 43rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Off-Field Storylines: 58th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Sports Betting: 44th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Pittsburgh Team & Front Office: 51st percentile of ranked FBS teams
The season, felt twice
Weekly positive share for both comment sections on one axis; hover shows the week's combined comment volume. Central Michigan's positive share was higher in 21 of 22 shared weeks, Pittsburgh's in 1.
| Week of | CMU | PITT | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 64.9% | 60.7% | 710 |
| 2025-08-30 | 89.4% | 56.8% | 1,780 |
| 2025-09-06 | 71.3% | 61.3% | 1,083 |
| 2025-09-13 | 76.1% | 26.6% | 1,963 |
| 2025-09-20 | 83.1% | 55.2% | 523 |
| 2025-09-27 | 81.5% | 20.9% | 1,392 |
| 2025-10-04 | 72.2% | 70.7% | 715 |
| 2025-10-11 | 67.9% | 72.7% | 1,225 |
| 2025-10-18 | 85.3% | 68% | 1,162 |
| 2025-10-25 | 85.3% | 74.3% | 1,540 |
| 2025-11-01 | 83.3% | 65.1% | 1,488 |
| 2025-11-08 | 81.5% | 57% | 2,377 |
| 2025-11-15 | 89.1% | 50% | 2,971 |
| 2025-11-22 | 85.6% | 56.2% | 2,667 |
| 2025-11-29 | 82.3% | 55.2% | 1,628 |
| 2025-12-06 | 72.4% | 43% | 1,193 |
| 2025-12-13 | 60% | 55.9% | 1,771 |
| 2025-12-20 | 82.1% | 65.6% | 1,109 |
| 2025-12-27 | 88.9% | 26.2% | 1,819 |
| 2026-01-03 | 89.7% | 32.8% | 403 |
| 2026-01-10 | 94.7% | 37.5% | 486 |
| 2026-01-17 | 39% | 37.8% | 260 |